Heterolocal Identities?

CounterUrbanisation, Second Homes, and

Rural Consumption in the Era of Mobilities
Keith Halfacree
*
Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
ABSTRACT
This paper forms part of a critical engagement
with the aspects of the core population
geography concept of counterurbanisation. It
argues that contextualising counterurbanisation
within the era of mobilities has profound
consequences for the concept. After introducing
the era of mobilities and its implications for
social science, migrations central and multiple
places within this discourse are outlined. The
paper then examines one set of ideas, dynamic
heterolocalism, that facilitates the
understanding of the existential signicance
today of the circulatory expressions of
migration. Returning to counterurbanisation,
the paper draws into its orbit the consumers of
rural second homes, understanding of which
has also increasingly adopted a quasi
heterolocal tone. An inclusive model of what is
then recast terminologically as counter
urbanisation posits it as an extremely
heterodox concept, potentially embracing not
only secondhome owners but also diverse
other consumers of rural space or rural
sojourners. The paper concludes by reiterating
the sustained centrality of rurality to
counterurbanisation, secondhome
consumption, and other expressions of identity
within the era of mobilities. Copyright 2011
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Accepted 26 October 2010
Keywords: migration; counterurbanisation;
second homes; heterolocalism; mobilities
INTRODUCTION: RETHINKING AND
REVITALISING COUNTERURBANISATION
Researchers of rural populationgeographyneed
to think more critically about the broad range of
movements and mobilities that are being played
out in rural spaces (Milbourne, 2007: 385).
T
his paper is the third intervention in a
loosely dened series that seeks to recon-
sider critically the established and widely
used population geography concept of counter-
urbanisation, aiming to revitalise it (Halfacree,
2001, 2008). This project also ts broadly with the
reections on the state of population geography
made by commentators such as Findlay and
Graham (1991), Halfacree and Boyle (1993),
White and Jackson (1995), and Graham (2000)
and with the Remaking Migration Theory confer-
ence at which this paper was originally pre-
sented. In brief, these interventions call on
population geography to be less inward looking
in respect of its conceptual development and
instead to draw critically on the insights pro-
vided by both the broader currents of social
theory and the more general societal contexts in
which population geographies are always being
(re)written (Bailey, 2005).
Asasocialscientictaxonomicconcept, counter-
urbanisation can be regarded as strongly
constructed (Halfacree, 2001). This construction
presents it as predominantly encompassing
migration into more rural areas usually but
not necessarily from urban areas underpinned
by a desire to live in such an area and access
various aspects of its perceived physical and
social environment.
Of course, ever since its initial identication
and naming by Brian Berry (1976) in the 1970s,
counterurbanisation (or counterurbanization) has
* Correspondence to: Keith Halfacree, Department of
Geography, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea,
UK.
Email: k.h.halfacree@swansea.ac.uk
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
POPULATION, SPACE AND PLACE
Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
Published online 14 March 2011 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/psp.665
been subjected to much academic debate, scrutiny,
and respecication (for an excellent review, see
Mitchell, 2004). Nevertheless, by the 30th anni-
versary of its discovery, much of this energy had
dissipated, and counterurbanisation had arguably
become something of an exhausted or saturated
research topic (cf. Halfacree, 2008). Consequently,
Milbourne (2007: 382) argued the need to revisit
critically and nuance carefully the metanarratives
of population change based on lifestyleled
voluntary movements of middleclass groups to
rural areas.
Hitherto in this revisiting, counterurbanisation
has been shown to be more complex than the
puried (Sibley, 1988) dominant understanding
would lead us to expect. In particular, two
dissident strands have been drawn out: alterna-
tive or marginal rural settlers seeking a more
total andintensive backtotheland lifestyle than
the counterbanisation mainstream (Halfacree,
2001; also Mackenzie, 2006) and an economic
international agricultural labour migrant dimen-
sion (Halfacree, 2008; also Rogaly, 2008). On top of
this is the presence of lowincome groups amongst
counterurbanisers (Milbourne, 2007).
The present paper takes this critical reconsid-
eration further by examining both the place and
the scope of counterurbanisation within what
will be labelled the contemporary era of mobil-
ities. The next section introduces this era and its
implications for social science, before drawing
out migrations central and multiple places
within this discourse. It then examines one set
of ideas, scripted here as dynamic heterolocalism,
that facilitates the understanding of the existen-
tial signicance of certain forms of circulatory
migration today. The second main section of the
paper returns to counterurbanisation with a
specic focus on the consumers of rural second
homes, the understanding of which is also seen
to have adopted quasiheterolocal tones. The
section ends by presenting an inclusive model of
what has become recast terminologically as
counterurbanisation, which I locate within
the era of mobilities as an extremely heterodox
concept, embracing not only secondhome con-
sumers but also other consumers of rural space,
termed rural sojourners. The paper concludes by
reecting on the general centrality of rurality
within the era of mobilities.
Within the revisiting of counterurbanisation to
date, attention has been paid primarily to the
types of people directly involved counter-
urbanisation as practice and their motivations
for moving towards a more rural residential
environment. Of course, within the breadth of
scholarship on counterurbanisation (Champion,
1989a; Boyle and Halfacree, 1998a; Mitchell,
2004), there are various emphases, with their
correspondingly detailed literatures. These range
from the empirical and demographic studies of
the changing populations of rural (and urban)
areas (e.g. Champion, 1992, 1994) to a concern
with counterurbanisation as a process, including
detailing the triggers and the drivers that help
make counterurbanisation such an uneven geo-
graphical and historical process (e.g. Champion,
1989b; Kontuly, 1998) to the implications of
counterurbanisation for more established rural
people and places (e.g. Cloke, 1985; Cloke et al.,
1995). There is also Mitchells (2004) own useful
distinction between pattern, process, and move-
ments. However, the present paper retains the
selective emphasis of focusing predominantly on
how experiences for the migrant, associated with
their locational shifts, can inform the conceptual-
isations of counterurbanisation. It has to be left
to other work to revisit the remaining chapters
within the diversely woven counterurbanisation
story (Champion, 1998).
MIGRATION IN AN ERA OF MOBILITIES
An Era of Mobilities
A sense of nearconstant change and transfor-
mation has long been recognised as a key feature
both of the central mode of production dynamic
and of life within capitalist society, especially by
critics (Berman, 1983). For example, Rousseau
(1782/2004: 137) lamented how Everything here
on earth is in a continual ux which allows
nothing to assume any constant form, whereas
Marx and Engels (1848/1998: 6) famously hoped
that the implications of All That is Solid Melts into
Air could signal the eventual fate of capitalism
itself. However, it is only in the last couple of
decades that a number of writers have elevated a
sense of mobility more generally to heightened
existential zeitgeist status. From this perspective,
with All the world seem[ingly] on the move
(Sheller and Urry, 2006: 207), both an experiential
and metaphorical sense of ux now predominate
within everyday life and consciousness.
210 K. Halfacree
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
John Urry and coworkers, in particular, have
sought to elaborate this era of mobilities through
numerous publications (e.g. Urry, 2000; Hannam
et al., 2006; Sheller and Urry, 2006; Urry, 2007).
For Urry (2000: 18), metaphors of movement,
mobility, and contingent ordering must tran-
scend those of stasis, structure, and social order
to understand todays sociology beyond societies.
Consequently, Sheller and Urry (2006) herald the
arrival of a new mobilities paradigm with which
to examine the present condition. This paradigm
(also Urry, 2007) challenges, rst, the dominant
sedentarist tradition within social science that
assumes boundedness and authenticity in place
foundational to human life. Sedentarism, Sheller
and Urry argue (2006: 208), provokes an ignoring
or trivialising of the systematic movements of
people at a host of different scales. However, the
new mobilities paradigm, second, is also wary of
embracing any nomadic counter to sedentarism,
with its overt celebration of the freedom of living
in the uid times of liquid modernity (Bauman,
2000). Inspired especially by feminist critiques of
the (gendered) selectivity of any freedom on
offer (e.g. Wolff, 1993; McDowell, 1996), the era
of mobilities must not be (over)romanticised.
Overall, therefore, the new mobilities paradigm
seeks to transcend sedentarist and nomadic
conceptualisations of place and movement
(Sheller and Urry, 2006: 214), acknowledging,
for example, stability within movement and
movement within stability.
Urry and his coworkers are not the only ones
to observe and to try to come to terms with the
era of mobilities. There is Cliffords (1997: 44)
travelling foregrounded as a cultural prac-
tice, Baumans (2000) aforementioned liquid
modernity, or Cresswells (2006: 21) lucid illus-
trations of mobility where movement is made
meaningful in the global North. Giving slightly
more details, Doreen Massey developed her
global sense of place (Massey, 1991) into an
evocative formulation of the event of place as a
throwntogetherness. As the following quotation
suggests, this formulation is clearly rooted in a
strong sense of mobility but skilfully steers
between the Scylla of sedentarism and the
Charybdis of nomadism:
if everything is moving where is here?
Here is where spatial narratives meet up or
formcongurations, conjunctures of trajectories
which have their own temporalities But
where the successions of meetings, the accu-
mulation of weavings and encounters build up
a history. what is special about place is not
some romance of a pregiven collective identity
or of the eternity of the hills. Rather, what is
special about place is precisely that thrownto-
getherness, the unavoidable challenge of nego-
tiating a hereandnow the coming together
of the previously unrelated, a [temporary]
constellation of processes rather than a thing
(Massey, 2005: 138141).
Recognising Mobile Lives and Mobile
Understandings
The era of mobilities has a central place for
human migration within the ows and scapes
(networked places, transport, and other infra-
structure structuring ows) of the mobility
landscapes (Urry, 2000). This signicance comes
across quantitatively with the increased fre-
quency and diversity of migration experiences
within everyday lives. Consequently, systematic
movements of people feature numerous times in
the work of Urry and colleagues, although they
have tended to focus on more novel forms and
expressions of mobility rather than on migration
per se, allowing space for migration researchers to
become more involved. This relative neglect
reects, in part, how mobility is not to be reduced
to migration or even to corporeal travel (Urry,
2007: 47).
Qualitatively, too, mobilities researchers have
acknowledged how migration impacts on the
human condition, including the issues such as
belonging, community, identity, and social
cultural expression. For Hannam et al. (2006: 10;
also Urry, 2007),
studies of migration, diasporas and trans-
national citizenship offer trenchant critiques
of the bounded and static categories of nation,
ethnicity, community, place and state.
The aspects of this qualitative signicance of
migration will be considered throughout the rest
of this paper, notably in the next subsection and
then in the context of secondhome consumption.
Noting the conceptual challenges posed by
the mobilities paradigm, however, means that
acknowledging the increasing quantitative and
211 CounterUrbanisation, Second Homes, and Rural Consumption
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
qualitative signicance of migration within
everyday life is not in itself enough. Whilst
migrations may be empirically key elements of
the era of mobilities, how they are (pre)domi-
nantly conceptualised and understood within
social science also merits critical scrutiny. When
this is done, and somewhat paradoxically, mi-
gration is found to be infused with sedentarism.
The sedentarist understanding of migration is
reected by its embeddedness within the net-
works of everyday life. In the global North today,
the act of moving house, notwithstanding the
vagaries of both the housing market and the
economy generally, has become a relatively
mundane practice, even if still often a stressful
one! It is one to be undertaken as efciently and
painlessly as possible so as to minimise disrup-
tion to the emplaced normal condition. For
minimal disruption, and as with mundane
practices generally, moving house has become
heavily institutionalised in and through facilitat-
ing networks. These networks comprise, inter
alia, a wide range of both agencies and norms of
practice. Any one move, even if just down the
road, includes some or all the following: banks,
building societies, letting agencies, mortgage
providers, removal companies, decorators, and
utilities companies. In addition, the norms of
practice that can be called upon to explain and
legitimise the move include discourses of migra-
tion for economic betterment, quality of life,
accessibility, retirement, childrens welfare, and
so on. Furthermore, as the proponents of actor
network theory have suggested, once a network
takes shape, it can rapidly acquire strong
durability and opacity as it becomes heavy with
norms (Callon, 1992: 91). Thus, in addition to re
inscribing a sedentary norm of xity in place, for
much of the time and in most places and
circumstances, human migration as moving
house has become sedentarised itself. It has
become one of our commonplace facts of (social)
life, a largely unexamined element of collective
behaviour (Boyle and Halfacree, 1998b).
In the era of mobilities, however, the increase
in migrations and its consequences create some-
thing of a contradiction with respect to this dual
sense of sedentarism. On the one hand, its
commonplaceness reinforces the embedding of
migration within moving house networks, which
are left to operate as rapidly as possible and
with the minimum of fuss so as to reinstate the
emplaced norm. On the other hand, this same
increased commonplaceness of migration and the
consequences that ow from this, for the way
peoples worlds both are and seem, challenge
any cosy sedentarist status quo. In particular,
multifaceted experiences of entanglement with
migration as migrant, observer, and engager
with the consequences both expose migration
and position it more centrally with respect to the
issues of identity formation. At least ve related
currents critique migrations sedentarism.
First, the fundamental sedentarist understand-
ing of migration as a clearly bounded, discrete
event is challenged. Within the era of mobilities,
migration in all of its diversity merits being
considered in its own right rather than as
predominantly some kind of instrumental be-
havioural tool used to achieve placeassociated
goals, such as a better job or a more pleasant
residential environment. Migration can no longer
be bracketed out, whether receiving specic
research attention or not, but must be recognised
as something inextricably and constitutively
entangled with the biographies of those involved
(Halfacree and Boyle, 1993). Chambers (1994: 5;
emphasis added) indicated this understanding
early on by acknowledging an era of migrancy,
where the promise of homecoming becomes
an impossibility. With migration deeply inscribed
in the itineraries of much contemporary reason-
ing (Chambers, 1994: 2), whether or not one is a
migrant and all of us are extremely likely to
acquire such a status several times in our lives it
is a form of everyday practice that clearly
impinges on all everyday lives.
Second, any breakdown of migration being
understood predominantly as a clearly bounded
event quickly leads to challenging the funda-
mental sedentarist norm of being settled in place.
For example, migration as a cleancut move from
origin to destination is destabilised by the rise
of duallocation households (Green et al., 1999),
typically involving weekly longdistance com-
muting by one partner as family, and work
commitments are split both spatially and be-
tween weekdays and weekends. This practice
can be taken still further by partners maintaining
two separate houses (Kaufmann, 2002).
Third, at a more global scale, knowledge of the
sheer scale and scope of many peoples mobility
invoke Chambers (1994) condition of migrancy.
For example, one can identify a new international
212 K. Halfacree
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
migrant class system that features two core sets
of mobile individuals: exible specialists and
new helots (Cohen, 1987). Crudely, the former
are highly qualied workers with highdemand
transferable skills that can be utilised in almost any
labour market, whereas the latter represent a global
proletarian reserve army of labour deployed to
take up low paid and otherwise unwanted jobs in
the economies of the rich global North.
Fourth, and running on from all three previ-
ous points, the permanenttemporary binary that
has conventionally pervaded and structured
much of our understanding of migration (Bell
and Ward, 2000) has increasingly been regarded
as unhelpful. For example, in their review of the
geography of highly skilled international migra-
tion, a hitherto relatively neglected topic, Koser
and Salt (1997: 285; emphasis added) noted how
one consequence of increasing recognition of
temporary migration [as] the evolving norm
was that it took many forms, capable of
metamorphosis into each other and into more
permanent settlement. Indeed, because any migra-
tion is likely to be temporary in terms of the
duration of a persons life, the very idea of
permanent migration increasingly seems a
product of an implicit assumption of normative
sedentarist settlement.
Fifth, reconsideration of past work on migra-
tion and the migrants experiences also reveal
latent challenges to any sedentarist norm. For
example, within rural studies, the idea of the
dormitory village has been powerful since Pahls
(1965) classic account of Urbs in Rure identied a
village population whose inmigration led to
them using their new home practically as a place
to sleep, with working lives lived elsewhere (e.g.
through commuting to London), and social and
cultural lives often equally displaced. In short,
sustained connections away from both home and
village undermined any sedentarist nality with
respect to having moved house.
In summary, the era of mobilities forces us to
reassess our ideas of human migration from at
least two angles. First, as a clear expression of
mobilities and as a core constitutive element;
migration assumes added signicance as a
marker of our age, thereby warranting renewed
scrutiny. Second, when this is done, previously
predominant understandings of migration are
found to be underpinned by a strong sedentarist
assumption that, whatever its validity in the past,
is now increasingly untenable. Fortunately, mi-
gration research has begun to appreciate both
points, albeit mostly entangled within another
problematic dualism, international versus intra-
national migration.
Migration and a Dynamic Heterolocalism
The vast majority of work on counterurbanisa-
tion has been conducted within an intranational
perspective, presenting it primarily as a domestic
phenomenon (Halfacree, 2008). Although such an
interpretation is quantitatively accurate, domes-
tication both reects and reinforces a long
recognised dualism within research between
work on internal (intranational) and international
migration (Salt and Kitching, 1992). This dualism,
as Buller and Hoggart (1994: 3) prefaced in their
pioneering study of international counterubani-
sation, extends to concepts, theories and even the
issues studied. Of course, national boundaries
remainhighlysignicant evenwithina supposedly
freeowing globalised world (Waldinger and
Fitzgerald, 2004), but from the point of view of
migration research, this dualismis often unhelpful.
More specically, in terms of challenging
sedentarist understandings of migration and
acknowledging more fully the importance of
extralocal linkages, there is much to be learnt
from the now established international migration
tradition of transnationalism (Bailey, 2005).
Transnational theory developed from the early
1990s, pioneered by the need of anthropolo-
gists Basch et al. (1994) to represent the multiple
place attachments expressed by the international
migrants they were studying (Levitt and Nyberg
Srensen, 2004). They went on to dene trans-
nationalism as follows:
the processes by which immigrants forge
and sustain multistranded social relations
that link together their societies of origin and
settlement. An essential element of trans-
nationalism is the multiplicity of involvements
that transmigrants sustain in both home
and host societies (Basch et al., 1994: 7;
emphasis added).
Work within this tradition (e.g. Hannerz, 1996)
has gone on to explore what it is to live in
an increasingly interconnected world with-
out recourse to overgeneral metanarratives
213 CounterUrbanisation, Second Homes, and Rural Consumption
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
such as global transformation (Conradson and
Latham, 2005).
Against the sedentarist container model of
society or the nationstate, where migration
easily becomes reduced to isolated objects
moving from country A to country B, trans-
nationalism well expresses the ows and scapes
web model (Urry, 2000) of a mobilities existence.
Of course, this again needs to be qualied by
acknowledging how state policies on immigra-
tion mean transnationalism should not be con-
fused with any more idealistic transnational civil
society (Waldinger and Fitzgerald, 2004).
Work on transnationalism also stresses how the
experiences it encompasses are not specic to a
narrow global elite (exible specialists). Instead,
they represent a broader range of connections
between here and there (Waldinger and
Fitzgerald, 2004: 1177). Within these connections,
a stabilitywithinmovement sensibility has in-
creasingly come through in an emphasis on
grounded attachments, geographies of belonging,
and practices of citizenship (Blunt, 2007: 687). This
is well represented by Michael Smiths (2001)
transnational urbanism, with its stress on both
mobility and emplacement or the complex
interweaving of individuals and social networks
within and through places [that] remains
attentive to the continuing signicance of place
and locality (Conradson and Latham, 2005: 228).
A similar joint emphasis on ow/connectivity
and place comes through in a concept that begins
to imagine transnationalism as internal [sic] as
well as international circulation, transgressing
the intranational/international dualism. This is
Zelinsky and Lees (1998) heterolocalism, devel-
oped to express ethnic minority communities in
the US as conforming neither to the assimilation
model of ultimate cultural and ethnic absorption
nor to the pluralist models presentation of lasting
but relatively isolated cultural and ethnic islands.
Instead, Zelinsky and Lee saw these communities
adopting a dispersed pattern of residential loca-
tion at the metropolitan scale, whilst retaining a
strong sense of ethnic community identity. The
result is a series of communities without propin-
quity (Webber, 1964), expressedgeographically as
a sequence of spatial disjunctures (Zelinsky and
Lee, 1998: 287) between places of signicance
within everyday life. Heterolocalism thus brings
transnational sensibility home to the intranational
scale, with its sense of an emergent identity rooted
through everyday connections between places
of diverse everyday texture (Conradson and
Latham, 2005: 228), from the home to the church,
festival site, other institutional location, and so on
(Zelinsky and Lee, 1998).
Taking the concept beyond Zelinsky and Lees
ethnic communities, the next section seeks to
arrive at a dynamic heterolocalist interpretation of
secondhome consumption within the era of
mobilities. Dynamic is appended here to stress
heterolocalism engaging with what Kaufmann
(2002: 37) calls motility or the way in which an
individual appropriates what is possible in the
domain of mobility and puts this potential to use
for his or her activities. More specically, dynamic
heterolocalism is concerned with forging identity
and lifestyle through multiple places that does not
depend on the core sedentarist assumption of a
single, settled home place.
SECONDHOME OWNERS AND
COUNTERURBANISATION
Second Homes in Britain and Nordic Countries
Second homes can be dened as an occasional
residence of a household that usually lives
elsewhere and which is primarily used for
recreation purposes (Shucksmith, 1983: 174).
1
They are found across the world (Hall and
Mller, 2004a), in urban as well as in rural
environments and at international as well as
intranational scales; for example, on the inter-
nationalisation of British second homeownership,
see Chaplin (1999) or Williams et al. (2004) and on
German secondhome owners in Sweden, see
Mller (1999, 2002). Numbers generally have
been growing through the past century. Further-
more, although there is a correspondingly long
history of scholarship on second homes within
often strong national traditions, the recent up-
surge in academic interest reects, in particular,
both their increased spatial reach (Williams et al.,
2004) and recognition of their signicance within
the more uid sense of mobility and place
afliation signalled by the era of mobilities (Hall
and Mller, 2004a; McIntyre et al., 2006a).
For brevity, and to sustain the rural focus
of the present paper, this section concentrates
on second homes within rural Britain and
the Nordic countries. These two sets of experi-
ences usefully encapsulate something of both the
214 K. Halfacree
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
diversity of rural secondhome presence and the
consumption practices within the global North
today. Crucially, as apparent in Shucksmiths
denition given above, there is a strong distinc-
tion to be made between British second homes,
whose owners represent an adventitious rural
population with usually little strong established
connection with their secondhome locations,
and second homes in Scandinavia and else-
where,
2
where bonds between supposedly urban
populations and specic rural places are often
much more strongly rooted. This difference is, of
course, partly a legacy of Britains status as the
rst highly urban industrial society.
Within Britain, gures suggest that there were
around a quarter of a million second homes in
England and around 17,000 in Wales circa 2001,
representing just over 1% of the housing stock
(Gallent et al., 2003a, 2004). Around a third of
these are rural holiday homes (others, e.g. being
urban ats lived in during the working week,
often associated with the duallocation house-
holds noted earlier). However, although overall
gures are small, a distinctive geographical
feature of second homes is their clustering in
particular places, notably national parks and
along the coast (Gallent and TewdwrJones,
2001a; Gallent et al., 2003b).
Numbers of British second homes initially
expanded with the growth of disposable income,
leisure time, and interest in consuming the
countryside in the 1960s. This stimulated a range
of studies in the 1970s, epitomised by Coppocks
(1977) edited collection, Second Homes: Curse or
Blessing? A subsequent levelling off and even
decline in numbers, reecting the corresponding
economic downturn, also saw a decline in
research until around 2000, when Nick Gallent
and colleagues (e.g. Gallent and TewdwrJones,
2001a, b; Gallent et al., 2003a, b, 2004), in
particular, revitalised academic interest. This
work followed a small growth in second homes
within Wales especially, stimulated in part by the
release of equity from a buoyant housing market
and improved rural accessibility. Indeed, uctua-
tions in numbers of British second homes tend to
mirror uctuations in the general housing market
(Gallent et al., 2003a).
Within British studies of second homes, and
indicated by the title of Coppocks book, the
political sensitivity of this form of property
ownership is an overriding theme. In part, this
stems from the aforementioned lack of pre
established connections between British second
home owners and their rural secondhome
locations. For example, Gallent et al. (2003a: 271)
noted within Wales a continuous and heated
debate over the last 30 years. This also comes
through from often impassioned discussion of
second homes within the media. One consequence
of this is that secondhome owners are often
secretive, not making research easy. From the
point of view of this paper, such controversiality
means that full appreciation of motivations for
secondhome purchase and how they are then
used might be missed. This was suggested in a
recent review.
The political problematisation of second
homes has led research to have a relatively
narrow focus, and second homes have been
studied in relative isolation from other expres-
sions of external housing demand in local
areas, such as retirement and commuting
(Wallace et al., 2005: 8).
Fortunately, as seen in the next subsection,
Gallent and his team have begun to broaden this
focus.
Greater insight into the practices of second
homes has been provided by work in the Nordic
countries. For example, in Norway the political
shadowover these properties is muchless intense
although on the increase due to recent develop-
ments in numbers and type especially because of
secondhome clusters, often purposebuilt, typi-
cally spatially separate from rst home settle-
ments (Overvg, 2009), and the aforementioned
established stronger connections between second
home owners and their rural locations. Second
homes are also much more numerous in Norway
than in Britain, with recent estimates suggesting
40% of the Norwegian population having some
access to an estimated 420,000 second homes
(Overvg, 2009). However, as in Britain, Nordic
second homes tend to be geographically clustered,
not only along the coast but also, especially and
increasingly, in the mountains (Kaltenborn et al.,
2009), where they may easily outnumber rst
homes (Overvg, 2009).
Rooted in Nordic romanticism and emerging
as a decidedly bourgeoislifestyle element in the
19th century, the social base of the hytte (cabin)
broadened after 1945 such that by the 1960s, they
215 CounterUrbanisation, Second Homes, and Rural Consumption
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
had become a leisure option even for some of the
working class (Flognfeldt, 2004; Mller, 2007;
Garvey, 2008). Facilitating recent growth in
second homes have been key signiers of the
era of mobilities, such as increased personal
mobility, disposable incomes, technological de-
velopments, and leisure time, as well as the
growth of rural forms of leisure (Hall and Mller,
2004a; Sta, 2007).
What is particularly informative about many of
the Nordic studies of second homes is that they
reveal considerable intensity and diversity of
engagements between secondhome owners and
both their properties and the surrounding envi-
ronments. Whilst, on the one hand, the leisure
use of the homes is a predominant theme across
the Nordic countries generally (Kaltenborn,
1998; Hall and Mller, 2004a; Vepslinen and
Pitknen, 2010), on the other hand, their less
controversial character and arguably normative
position within Nordic culture have promoted
fuller investigation of everyday usage. This will
be considered next.
SecondHome Consumption: towards Dynamic
Heterolocal Interpretations
mobilities need to be examined in their uid
interdependence and not in their separate
spheres (Sheller and Urry, 2006: 212).
From the focus of the present paper, the
question now arises of where second homes
and their owners t with respect to migration in
general and to counterurban forms of rural
consumption in particular. An immediate re-
sponse is likely to be that they do not, because
secondhome consumers are not inmigrants
but merely visitors who come to (conspicuously)
consume their second home and various aspects
of its environment for a few weeks each year and
then go home. However, such a response is much
less tenable if one breaks with or at least shows
awareness of the Anglocentric perspective of
secondhome owners having little or no estab-
lished connections with the rural locations of
their second homes. It is also increasingly
untenable if the mobilities literature is taken
seriously, as Tuulentie (2007), in particular, has
argued. There is a need to try again with the
relative placing of secondhome consumers, and
fortunately, work has begun to do this.
Moving away from the predominant view
of British second homes as a largely negative
feature of the rural landscape, Gallent and
colleagues have begun to revisit their potential
benets, both to rural communities and to second
home owners themselves. The former revolves
largely around secondhome owners local ex-
penditure (Shucksmith, 1983) and their potential
to facilitate touristic and other forms of economic
development (Gallent and TewdwrJones, 2001b).
This is clearly a very welcome input into otherwise
often impoverished and declining rural local
economies (Overvg, 2009).
In terms of further consideration of consump-
tion of the second home, Gallent (2007) has also
recently invoked a dwelling perspective. Follow-
ing Heideggers (1971) celebrated formulation,
Gallent argues that dwelling needs to be seen as
preceding building, not stemming from it as in
the predominant sedentarist idea of dwelling as
a process inherently rooted in interactive
productivity (Falk and Kilpatrick, 2000: 93) and
engagement. Although secondhome owners
might not rate highly from the second perspec-
tive (at least in Britain) although place
attachment (roots) and mobility (routes) should
not be seen as intrinsically oppositional concepts
(Aronsson, 2004) this does not mean that such
consumption is not also dwelling. As Gallent
notes, quoting another Heideggerian interpret-
ation, private dwelling can be dened in
geographically embracing terms as the house,
the village, the town, the city and the nation
in the generality it is of humanity taking root in
the soil (King, 2004: 21). And like plants that
then grow, dwelling is not essentially static,
xed, or sedentary but can embrace mobility
(Quinn, 2004). In the era of mobilities, people
have not ceased to dwell but as being changes so
do ways of dwelling, and the latter can now
incorporate consumption (and production) of
second homes.
Changing being and how second homes t
with corresponding changing practices of dwell-
ing are exemplied more fully in work exam-
ining the consumption of Nordic and other
countries second homes. Typically, and at rst
site very plausibly, consumption is interpreted
as the second home providing some kind
of escape or vacation from a predominantly
216 K. Halfacree
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
urban modernity (e.g. Kaltenborn, 1998). How-
ever, the adequacy of such a perspective has been
questioned as secondhome consumption is seen
more as a direct part of everyday existence or
dwelling (Overvg, 2009) within a comprehen-
sive lifecourse strategy (Mller, 2007: 199).
Garvey (2008), Quinn (2004), and others (e.g.
Chaplin, 1999; Sta, 2007) accept at one level the
role of the second home as providing an escape
or release value (Quinn, 2004: 113) but then
nuance this by stressing how any nominal escape
from the usually urban daily routine is always
accompanied by much of this same everyday life
and the existential issues it raises. People rarely
travel without baggage, and the content of this
baggage is unpacked at the second home and
features in subsequent place consumption. Cen-
tral here are desires to (re)connect with people,
place, and everyday experiences; all of which are
facilitated or imagined as being facilitated at
the second home, where one can achieve some
dimension of lifestyle that is not available at [the]
primary residence (Hall and Mller, 2004b: 12;
also Jaakson, 1986). Thus, peoples desire to
escape is strongly tempered by an attempt both
to reconnect with experiences from their past
and to strive for a continuity that will strengthen
into their futures (Quinn, 2004: 118). This re
presents escape, therefore, as more a negation
than ight from everyday existence (Garvey,
2008: 205) and as an attempt to revisit and
rediscover experiences, times and places that
create a sense of connectedness (Quinn, 2004:
118) stability within movement. Consequently,
life in the second home and its appreciation of
what is not achieved within [the rest of] daily life
(Garvey, 2008: 218) can feed back to revitalise
home life in the primary place (Quinn, 2004: 117),
making rst and second homes mutually
supportive rather than antagonistic.
The existential strand of secondhome con-
sumption set within in an alternative reading to
the era of mobilities a globalised postmodern
era of relentless simulation and spectacle en-
hances the signicance of the equally well
established role of second homes as sites where
nature can be experienced more directly and
meaningfully (e.g. Jaakson, 1986; Kaltenborn,
1998; Chaplin, 1999; Hall and Mller, 2004a, b).
Thus, Vepslinen and Pitknen (2010: 202203)
present second homes in Finland today as
the last fortresses of the traditional and real
countryside [promoting c]onnection to wild
nature, [a] counterbalance to urban life, family
togetherness and the possibility to engage in
various naturebased activities.
Signicantly, therefore, second homes may
increasingly be seen as comprising an integral
element of home, not somehow existing outside
and independent of it. As numerous writers have
outlined (Blunt and Dowling, 2006), the concept
of home is in considerable ux in the era of
mobilities, both feeding into and being informed
by what Sta (2007: 4) describes as a changing
home culture, dened as the dynamic inter-
relationship between physical and socioeco-
nomic structures and ideas, values and
meanings. In short, amongst other changes,
home cultures have decreasingly come to revolve
around the xed, sedentarist, and placebased
ideal home but instead have come to encompass
multiple places (Hall and Mller, 2004b), with
Arnesen (2009, in Overvg, 2009) proposing the
idea of multihouse homes over multiple
homes, and Tuulentie (2007: 298) talking of
how Different places seem to be needed for
different purposes.
In an increasingly signicant everyday condition
of normalised circulation (Quinn, 2004), it is not
just that work, home [sic] and play are separated
in time and place, and meanings and identity are
structured around not one but several places
(McIntyre et al., 2006b: 314). Nor is it just that
individual properties can shift from being
second to principal homes, or from summer
holiday to winter season homes (Williams et al.,
2004: 112). More than all of this, the usual
residence core concept within studies of perma-
nent migration (Bell and Ward, 2000) is destabi-
lised as the very idea of home place becomes plural
(also Perkins and Thorns, 2006; Tuulentie, 2007),
movement within stability. Being away can
become another form of being at home (McIntyre
et al., 2006b; Overvg, 2009), and one returns to
Gallents (2007) expression of dwelling as not
(normatively) static but increasingly expressing
multiple roots in different places (Aronsson, 2004:
76). One also returns to the concept of dynamic
heterolocalism, specically positioning second
homes and their consumption rmly within the
remit of this era of mobilitys existential condition.
In summary, and drawing upon the rich
tradition of Scandinavian secondhome research
in particular, to place secondhome consumption
217 CounterUrbanisation, Second Homes, and Rural Consumption
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
within the era of mobilities suggests that it is
increasingly difcult conceptually to separate
denitively secondhome consumers from more
permanent counterurbanising rural place con-
sumers. Consequently, as people strive to con-
struct heterolocal identities through what can be
obtained through a multitude of relational places
(Massey, 2005) within a mobile world, and as
academics recognise sedentarism inherent in
seemingly xed terms such as second home,
there is increasingly a potential to stir second
homes and their consumers into the counter-
urbanisation story (Champion, 1998). In the era
of mobilities, both permanenttemporary and
leisureeveryday (Hannam, 2008) binaries have
increasingly crumbled. Consequently, just as
rural second homes can no longer be bracketed
(Anglocentrically) merely as temporary rural
leisure use so can counterurbanisation no longer
maintain its position as encompassing exclusively
permanent rural home location. But this inter-
mingling does not even have to end here.
From Other Rural Sojourners to a Broader
Imagination of Counterurbanisation
Most people travel (Hannam, 2008: 135)
the dominant experience of the rural is one
gained from eeting visits to or journeys
through rural spaces and places (Milbourne,
2007: 385).
Just as secondhome consumption in the era of
mobilities suggests any clear dening line be-
tween what have traditionally been understood as
second and rst homes is increasingly ontologi-
cally untenable, so too have secondhome re-
searchers begun to challenge the subdisciplinary
sedentarist epistemological xing of their subject.
For example, whilst acknowledging the increased
use of second homes by their owners, Mller
(1999) proposed interrogating second homes
through migration and population distribution
theories as much as through the theories of
tourism. Furthering this, Williams and Hall
(2002) located second homes as temporary
mobility between tourism and migration, which
Aronsson (2004): 76; also Chaplin, 1999) develops
into a more third space formulation of the second
home being between the ordinary and the
extraordinary, whereas Mller (2002) came back
more generally to suggest that neither spacetime
usage nor motivations are now sufcient to
distinguish robustly tourism from migration.
What all this further epistemological destabilis-
ing suggests is that second homes have become
something of a Trojan Horse in an assault,
underpinned by the rise of diverse mobilities, on
the distinction between leisure and migration.
Indeed, again acknowledging in particular how
circulation between different places no longer
represents an aberration from ordinary, settled
life (Quinn, 2004: 114), the neglect of studies of
circulation or temporary mobility in the global
North (Bell and Ward, 2000) becomes increasingly
untenable. Moreover, having just suggested that
counterurbanisation and secondhome consump-
tion are increasingly entangled within circulation,
other leisurebased and diverse circulatory prac-
tices involving some kind of rural sojourn can be
brought into the mix. This is in stark contrast, for
example, to Shucksmiths (1983: 174) explicit
exclusion of caravans, boats, and holiday cot-
tages. While this suggestion may smack of
population geography heresy, it is surely a
potential consequence of the antisedentarist line
of the mobilities paradigm.
Although there is no space here to consider
them in detail, any list of rural sojourners who
stop for varying lengths of time but ultimately
pass (and typically frequently repass) through
the rural quickly grows. From owners of holiday
homes a group often elided with secondhome
owners but for whom the properties in question
are less exclusively consumed imagination can
spiral outwards to those renting caravans and
holiday homes and thence to the huge numbers
of rural tourists and other leisure users and
visitors who engage to a greater or lesser extent
with rural space in potential expressions of
dynamic heterolocalism. For all of these rural
sojourners, albeit to highly varying degrees, their
diverse consumption of the rural, in which they
are part of the places throwntogetherness
(Massey, 2005), can bring them into afliation
with secondhome consumers and more perma-
nent residents, whether (former) counterurbani-
sers or longer established residents. Indeed, and
once again it must be stressed to very varying
extents, their consumption of the rural can very
218 K. Halfacree
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
briey make them all counterurban or, recast
terminologically, counterurban.
This considerable broadening of the counter-
urbanisation lens suggests a new representation
of rural populations as counterurban popula-
tions. This model, shown in Figure 1, builds on
an earlier effort to integrate different forms
of more permanent counterurban migrations
(Halfacree, 2008). The latter had as its principal
axis the extent to which the pull of rurality
(via representations or more affectively) under-
pinned the migration as compared with more
instrumental considerations, such as the presence
of suitable employment or of family support in old
age, where the rural character of the destination,
although unlikely to be entirely insignicant, is
not the key underpinning of the migration. The
pull of rurality axis distinguished three groups:
backtotheland counterurbanisation, where the
pull of rurality is absolutely central; default
counterurbanisation, where rurality is largely
irrelevant; and mainstream counterurbanisation,
where the pull of rurality is important but
balanced by, for example, being near enough to
Back-to-the-land counterurbanisation
Mainstream counterurbanisation
Default counterurbanisation
Pull of rurality
Pull of (economic) instrumentality
Degree of full-time residence
Key:
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Occasional visitors (non-residential)
In-transit visitors
" " (residential)
Regular " (non-residential)
" " (residential)
Second-home owners (irregular users)
" " (regular users)
Dual location households
Long-distance workers (rarely at home)
Long-distance commuters (weekly)
" " (daily)
Short-distance " (urban)
" " (rural)
Non-commuters (in-situ)
Figure 1. Model of rural counterurban populations.
219 CounterUrbanisation, Second Homes, and Rural Consumption
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
suitable urban employment or services. The new
model signicantly adds a further dimension,
namely intensity of time spent within the
identied rural environment.
This further dimension needs some further
elaboration. First, the intensity of time spent
within the rural environment seeks to get across
some measure of the extent to which people who
nd themselves throwntogether with the rural
environment become entangled with this envi-
ronment; their position on what Gallent (2007: 99)
proposes as an inhabited to immersed typology.
In short, how important is the rural environ-
ment for the person and their identity formation
within any more broadly constituted dynamic
heterolocalism? Time spent/duration in the rural
(also Bell and Ward, 2000) is used as a proxy in
Figure 1 to represent such connectedness. Of
course, such a temporal measure will often not
precisely map intensity or signicance of the rural
emplacing but is used demonstratively to enable
initial naming of the slices identied.
Second, the 14 slices named in Figure 1
represent counterurban encounters, ranging
from a person whose rural engagement is an
incidental and minor aspect of their movement
(intransit visitor) to someone whose almost
whole daily life is inscribed by their rural
environment (noncommuters in situ). Within this
imaginary, the conventional or mainstreamcount-
erurbaniser has now been substantially relativ-
ised even more than in the earlier model. This is
because the newmodel expresses a counterurban
sensibility rather than a counterurban sensibility,
where the emphasis is on the consumption of the
rural (especially as it differs from urban con-
sumption) within mobilities rather than any
unidirectional migration rooted in sedentarism.
But Not Always: a Qualication
Finally, a few words of caution are required. In
short, it is not my intention to replace conclusively
any existing sedentarist classication of rural
populations with an equally xed counterurban
alternative. Drawing inspiration from Foucault
and others on how classication must always be
recognised as (re)presentation (Halfacree, 2001),
Figure 1 needs to be seen as a modest, heuristic,
and always contextual taxonomical construct.
From the points of view of appreciating
allegiances between those consuming the rural
in otherwise seemingly myriad and unconnect-
ed ways, of acknowledging the diversity of
those producing any postproductivist coun-
tryside (Vepslinen and Pitknen, 2010) and
of suggesting how old and easily takenfor
granted boundaries within the era of mobilities
are just no longer adequate (also Urry, 2000),
Figure 1 may be of socialscientic value.
However, in other instances, it will be less so
and will (re)present an inadequate and even
inappropriate classication. For example, return-
ing to secondhome owners, there are contexts
in which they merit relatively clear delinea-
tion from the rural population, such as when
considering politically the most appropriate way
to tax them or subject them to planning
regulations (from a British perspective, see
Shucksmith, 1983; Gallent and TewdwrJones,
2001a, b).
CONCLUSION: RURALITY WITHIN
DYNAMIC HETEROLOCALISM
to categorise second home owners as exter-
nal and as opposed to local residents is not
very fruitful (Overvg, 2009: 65).
This paper has argued that migration, as a core
constituent of the era of mobilities, has acquired
heightened everyday signicance in the 21st
century. This energised postmillennial migration
is not somehow the same as migration in the
past, with the mobilities paradigmalso suggesting
that it cannot thus be studied in the same ways
as before. Instead, as migration has attained
heightened existential and ontological signi-
cance, it has also become necessary to mobilise
our own epistemological appreciation of it,
notably through the deconstruction of the previ-
ously relatively rm binaries, such as stability
versus movement, permanent versus temporary,
and intranational versus international. One con-
sequence of this turmoil is a shakeup, in turn, of
counterurbanisations normatively acquired status
as a permanent, intranational move to a rural
environment ultimatelyrootedinstable settlement.
Such a shakeup has allowed this paper to bring
into the counterurbanisation orbit secondhome
consumptionandevenless committed leisure and
other forms of rural consumption, all represented
in Figure 1. Indeed, as Overvg (2009) suggests, the
220 K. Halfacree
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
Norwegian secondhomes experience posits an
alternative model of rural population change to
the dominant Anglocentric conventional counter-
urbanisation story (Champion, 1998).
Coming froma different directionbut ultimately
arriving at an allied argument, Gallent et al. (2004)
positioned second homes as part of the broader
processes and pressures faced by rural communi-
ties within Britain today. Elsewhere, they also
placed their consumers with retirees, commuters,
lifestyle changers, and others as all being forms of
urban encroachment seeking a common goal
(Gallent et al., 2003b: 23). This goal, it seems, is
the rural itself or the elements of its locality,
representation, or lived lives (Halfacree, 2006).
It is this rural goal, I argue in conclusion, that
saves the narrative of this paper and Figure 1s
model of (potential) rural populations, in par-
ticular, from the everlurking charge of compris-
ing a new, and especially vexing, chaotic
conception, an overinclusive unhelpful repre-
sentation that does more to confuse than to
enlighten. It seems very clear that not only is
seeking the rural a profound, pervasive, and
plural tendency within contemporary society but
that this search is also increasingly seen less in
escapist terms, that is, as ultimately signifying
bourgeois ideological distraction from more
radical political engagement with the era of
(capitalist) mobilities. Instead, within our increas-
ingly dynamic heterolocal existence, people
experience through the rural, aspects of for
want of a better expression being human that
are at best only animated in watereddown forms
within the rest of everyday life (also Garvey,
2008). However, this (implicitly) critical edge of
the rural as a heterotopic space (Halfacree, 2010;
also Tuulentie, 2007) must be credited, cultivated,
and corralled much more explicitly politically.
Otherwise, rurality is predominantly recuperated
and consumed as part of the spectacular con-
sumer society it ostensibly critiques, and the
second home, for example, certainly shifts from
the sphere of heritage to that of exclusive
commodity (Mller, 2007).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank all those whose support at different
stages in the conception, gestation, and eventual
birth of this paper has been vital. They include
Kjell Overvg, Svein Frisvoll, Winfried Ellingsen,
Johan Fredrik Rye, Nina Berg, and all those
involved in the Norwaybased secondhomes
research I engaged with at the Centre for Rural
Research, Trondheim and elsewhere; Darren
Smith, Russell King, and Jenny Money from the
2009 Remaking Migration Theory conference to the
preparation of the paper for this journal; and, of
course, the anonymous and very helpful referees.
NOTES
(1) For more on the issue of dening second homes
and the range of properties that can be encom-
passed, see Hall and Mller, 2004b; Mller,
2007; Sta, 2007. Also, it should be noted that
Shucksmiths denition was very much indica-
tive of its contemporary British context, with the
article beginning by presenting the secondhome
owner as The most controversial and contentious of
urban visitors (Shucksmith, 1983: 174), a reasonable
depiction within political debates at the time.
(2) For example, in Spain, an important aspect of
many urban residents identities comes from
participation in and involvement in organising
estas and other social events in their ancestral
villages (Barke, 2004; Querol, 2010).
REFERENCES
Arnesen T. 2009. Recreational home agglomerations in
rural areas in Norway as emerging economic and
political space. In Proceedings of the Conference on
Understanding and Managing Amenityled Migration in
Mountain Regions, Moss L, Glorioso R, Ryall A, Krause
A (eds). Banff: Canada.
Aronsson L. 2004. Place attachment of vacation resi-
dents: between tourists and permanent residents. In
Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes, Hall C, Mller D
(eds). Channel View Publications: Clevedon; 7586.
Bailey A. 2005. Making Population Geography. Hodder
Arnold: London.
Barke M. 2004. Rural tourism in Spain. International
Journal of Tourism Research 6: 137149.
Basch L, Glick Schiller N, SzantonBlanc C. 1994.
Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial
Predicaments, andDeterritorializedNationStates. Gordon
and Breach: Langhorne, PA.
Bauman Z. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Polity: Cambridge.
Bell M, Ward G. 2000. Comparing permanent migra-
tion with temporary mobility. Tourism Geographies 2:
97107.
Berman M. 1983. All that is Solid Melts into Air. Verso:
London.
221 CounterUrbanisation, Second Homes, and Rural Consumption
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
Berry B. 1976. The counterurbanization process: urban
America since 1970. In Urbanization and Counter
urbanization, Berry B (ed.). Sage: Beverly Hills, CA;
1730.
Blunt A. 2007. Cultural geographies of migration:
mobility, transnationality and diaspora. Progress in
Human Geography 31: 684694.
Blunt A, Dowling R. 2006. Home. Routledge: London.
Boyle P, Halfacree K (eds). 1998a. Migration into Rural
Areas: Theories and Issues. Wiley: London.
Boyle P, Halfacree K. 1998b. Migration into rural areas:
a collective behaviour framework? In Migration into
Rural Areas: Theories and Issues, Boyle P, Halfacree K
(eds). Wiley: London; 303316.
Buller H, Hoggart K. 1994. International Counterurbani-
zation. Avebury: Aldershot.
Callon M. 1992. The dynamics of technoeconomic
networks. In Technological Change and Company
Strategies: Economic and Sociological Perspectives,
Coombs R, Saviotti P, Walsh V (eds). Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich: London; 77102.
Chambers I. 1994. Migrancy, Culture, Identity. Routledge:
London.
Champion A (ed.). 1989a. Counterurbanization: The
Changing Pace and Nature of Population Deconcentra-
tion. Edward Arnold: London.
Champion A. 1989b. Conclusion: temporary anomaly,
longterm trend or transitional phase? In Counter-
urbanization: The Changing Pace and Nature of Population
Deconcentration, Champion A (ed.). Edward Arnold:
London; 230244.
Champion A. 1992. Urban and regional demographic
trends in the developed world. Urban Studies 29:
461482.
Champion A. 1994. Population change and migration
in Britain since 1981: evidence for continuing
deconcentration. Environment and Planning A 26:
15011520.
Champion A. 1998. Studying counterurbanisation and
the rural population turnaround. In Migration into
Rural Areas. Theories and Issues, Boyle P, Halfacree K
(eds). Wiley: Chichester; 2140.
Chaplin D. 1999. Consuming work/productive leisure:
the consumption patterns of second home environ-
ments. Leisure Studies 18: 4155.
Clifford J. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late
Twentieth Century. Harvard University Press: Cam-
bridge, MA.
Cloke P. 1985. Counterurbanisation: a rural perspec-
tive. Geography 70: 1323.
Cloke P, Goodwin M, Milbourne P. 1995. Theres so
many strangers in the village now: marginalization
and change in 1990s Welsh rural lifestyles. Contem-
porary Wales 8: 4774.
Cohen R. 1987. The New Helots: Migrants in the
International Division of Labour. Gower: Aldershot.
Conradson D, Latham A. 2005. Transnational urban-
ism: attending to everyday practices and mobilities.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31: 227233.
Coppock J. 1977. Second Homes: Curse or Blessing?
Pergamon: Oxford.
Cresswell T. 2006. On the Move. Mobility in the Modern
Western World. Routledge: London.
Falk I, Kilpatrick S. 2000. What is social capital? A
study of interaction in a rural community. Sociologia
Ruralis 40: 87110.
Findlay A, Graham E. 1991. The challenge facing
population geography. Progress in Human Geography
15: 149162.
Flognfeldt T. 2004. Second homes as part of a new rural
lifestyle in Norway. In Tourism, Mobility and Second
Homes, Hall C, Mller D (eds). Channel View
Publications: Clevedon; 233243.
Gallent N. 2007. Second homes, community and a
hierarchy of dwelling. Area 39: 97106.
Gallent N, TewdwrJones M. 2001a. Use class answer
to second home ills. Town and Country Planning
70(10): 266267.
Gallent N, TewdwrJones M. 2001b. The taxing issue of
secondhomes. Town and Country Planning 70(1): 2223.
Gallent N, Mace A, TewdwrJones M. 2003a. Dispelling a
myth? Second homes in rural Wales. Area 35: 271284.
Gallent N, Mace A, TewdwrJones M. 2003b. Second
homes a plan for action? Town and Country
Planning 72(1): 2324.
Gallent N, Mace A, TewdwrJones M. 2004. Second
homes. A new framework for policy. Town Planning
Review 75: 287308.
Garvey P. 2008. The Norwegian country cabin and
functionalism: a tale of two modernities. Social
Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale 16: 20320.
Graham E. 2000. What kind of theory for what kind of
population geography? International Journal of Popu-
lation Geography 6: 257272.
Green A, Hogarth T, Shackleton R. 1999. Long Distance
Living. Dual Location Households. Policy Press: Bristol.
Halfacree K. 2001. Constructing the object: taxonom-
ic practices, counterurbanisation and positioning
marginal rural settlement. International Journal of
Population Geography 7: 395411.
HalfacreeK. 2006. Rural space: constructingathreefold
architecture. In Handbook of Rural Studies, Cloke P,
MarsdenT, MooneyP(eds). Sage: London; 4462.
Halfacree K. 2008. To revitalise counterurbanisation
research? Recognising an international and fuller
picture. Population, Space and Place 14: 479495.
Halfacree K. 2010. Of castles, boltholes and rafts: anti
global affordances of rurality. Culture Unbound 2:
241263.
Halfacree K, Boyle P. 1993. The challenge facing
migration research: the case for a biographical
approach. Progress in Human Geography 17: 333348.
222 K. Halfacree
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
Hall C, Mller D (eds). 2004a. Tourism, Mobility and
Second Homes. Channel View Publications: Clevedon.
Hall C, Mller D. 2004b. Introduction: second homes,
curse or blessing? Revisited. In Tourism, Mobility and
Second Homes, Hall C, Mller D (eds). Channel View
Publications: Clevedon; 314.
Hannam K. 2008. Tourism geographies, tourist studies
and the turn towards mobilities. Geography Compass
2: 127139.
HannamK, Sheller M, Urry J. 2006. Editorial: mobilities,
immobilities and moorings. Mobilities 1: 122.
Hannerz U. 1996. Transnational Connections: Culture,
People, Places. Routledge: London.
Heidegger M. 1971. Building dwelling thinking. In
Poetry, Language, Thought, Trans, Hofstadter A (ed.).
Harper and Row: London; 145161.
Jaakson R. 1986. Secondhome domestic tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research 13: 357391.
Kaltenborn B. 1998. The alternative home: motives of
recreation home use. Norsk Geogrask Tidsskrift 52:
12134.
Kaltenborn B, Andersen O, Nellemann C. 2009. Amenity
development in the Norwegian mountains. Effects of
second home owner environmental attitudes on
preferences for alternative development options.
Landscape and Urban Planning 91: 195201.
Kaufmann V. 2002. ReThinking Mobility. Contemporary
Sociology. Ashgate: Aldershot.
King P. 2004. Private Dwelling: Contemplating the Use of
Housing. Routledge: London.
Kontuly T. 1998. Contrasting the counterurbanisation
experience in European nations. In Migration into
Rural Areas. Theories and Issues, Boyle P, Halfacree K
(eds). Wiley: Chichester; 6178.
Koser K, Salt J. 1997. The geography of highly skilled
international migration. International Journal of Popu-
lation Geography 3: 285303.
Levitt P, NybergSrensen N. 2004. The Transnational
Turn in Migration Studies. Global Migration Perspec-
tives 6. Global Commission on International Migra-
tion: Geneva.
Mackenzie F. 2006. A working land: crofting commu-
nities, place and the politics of the possible in post
Land Reform Scotland. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 31: 383398.
Marx K, Engels F. 1848/1998. The Communist Manifesto.
Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Massey D. 1991. A global sense of place. Marxism
Today, June: 2429.
Massey D. 2005. For Space. Routledge: London.
McDowell L. 1996. Off the road: alternative views of
rebellion, resistance and the beats. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers 21: 412419.
McIntyre N, Williams D, McHugh K (eds). 2006a.
Multiple Dwelling and Tourism. Negotiating Place,
Home and Identity. CABI: Wallingford.
McIntyre N, Williams D, McHugh K. 2006b. Multiple
dwelling: prospect and retrospect. In Multiple Dwell-
ing and Tourism. Negotiating Place, Home and Identity,
McIntyre N, Williams D, McHugh K (eds). CABI:
Wallingford; 313322.
Milbourne P. 2007. Repopulating rural studies: migra-
tions, movements and mobilities. Journal of Rural
Studies 23: 381386.
Mitchell C. 2004. Making sense of counterurbanization.
Journal of Rural Studies 20: 1534.
Mller D. 1999. German Second Home Owners in the
Swedish Countryside: On the Internationalization of the
Leisure Space. Kulturgeograska Institutionen: Ume.
Mller D. 2002. Second home ownership and sustain-
able development in Northern Sweden. Tourism and
Hospitality Research 3: 343355.
Mller D. 2007. Second homes in the Nordic countries:
between common heritage and exclusive commod-
ity. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 7:
193201.
Overvg K. 2009. Second Homes in Eastern Norway.
Doctoral Theses at NTNU 238, Norwegian Univer-
sity of Science and Technology: Trondheim.
Pahl R. 1965. Urbs in Rure. London School of
Economics: London.
Perkins H, Thorns D. 2006. Home away from home:
the primary/secondary home relationship. In Mul-
tiple Dwelling and Tourism. Negotiating Place, Home
and Identity, McIntyre N, Williams D, McHugh K
(eds). CABI: Wallingford; 6781.
Querol V. 2010. Rural Events, Participation and Mobilities
among Youth in Castell Province. Paper presented at
European Society for Rural Sociology Summer
School, Crdoba, Spain, October.
Quinn B. 2004. Dwelling through multiple places: a case
study of second home ownership in Ireland. In
Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes, Hall C, Mller D
(eds). Channel View Publications: Clevedon; 113129.
Rogaly B. 2008. Intensication of workplace regimes in
British horticulture: the role of migrant workers.
Population, Space and Place 14: 497510.
Rousseau JJ. 1782/2004. Reveries of a Solitary Walker.
Penguin: London.
Salt J, Kitching R. 1992. The relationship between
international and internal labour migration. In
Migration Processes and Patterns. Volume 1. Research
Progress and Prospects, Champion A, Fielding A
(eds). Belhaven Press: London; 148162.
Sheller M, Urry J. 2006. The new mobilities paradigm.
Environment and Planning A 38: 207226.
Shucksmith M. 1983. Second homes a framework for
policy. Town Planning Review 54: 174193.
Sibley D. 1988. Survey 13: purication of space. Environ-
ment and Planning D: Society and Space 6: 409421.
Smith M. 2001. Transnational Urbanism: Locating Global-
ization. Blackwell: Oxford.
223 CounterUrbanisation, Second Homes, and Rural Consumption
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
Sta E. 2007. Urban Cottages Rural Homes? Changing
Home Cultures: Challenges towards Sustainable Develop-
ment. Paper presented at European Network for
Housing Research International conference, Sustain-
able Urban Areas, Rotterdam.
Tuulentie S. 2007. Settled tourists: second homes as a
part of tourist life stories. Scandinavian Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism 7: 282301.
Urry J. 2000. Sociology beyond Societies. Routledge:
London.
Urry J. 2007. Mobilities. Polity: Cambridge.
Vepslinen M, Pitknen K. 2010. Second home
countryside. Representations of the rural in Finnish
popular discourses. Journal of Rural Studies 26:
194204.
Waldinger R, Fitzgerald D. 2004. Transnationalism
in question. American Journal of Sociology 109:
11771195.
Wallace A, Bevan M, Croucher K, Jackson K, OMalley
L, Orton V. 2005. The Impact of Empty, Second and
Holiday Homes on the Sustainability of Rural Commu-
nities: A Systematic Literature Review. Centre for
Housing Policy, University of York: York.
Webber M. 1964. Order in diversity: community
without propinquity. In Cities in Space: The Future
Use of Urban Land, Wingo L (ed.). Johns Hopkins
University Press: Baltimore; 2354.
White P, Jackson P. 1995. (Re)theorising population
geography. International Journal of Population Geography
1: 111123.
Williams A, Hall C. 2002. Tourism, migration, circula-
tion and mobility: the contingencies of time and
place. In Tourism and Migration: New Relationships
between Production and Consumption, Hall C, Williams
A (eds). Kluwer: Dordrecht; 152.
Williams A, King R, Warnes A. 2004. British second
homes in Southern Europe: shifting nodes in the
scapes and ows of migration andtourism. In Tourism,
Mobility and Second Homes, Hall C, Mller D (eds).
Channel View Publications: Clevedon; 97112.
Wolff J. 1993. On the road again: metaphors of travel in
cultural criticism. Cultural Studies 7: 224239.
Zelinsky W, Lee B. 1998. Heterolocalism: an alternative
model of the sociospatial behaviour of immigrant
ethnic communities. International Journal of Popula-
tion Geography 4: 281298.
224 K. Halfacree
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Popul. Space Place 18, 209224 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/psp